Talk:Women's major golf championships

Golf Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Golf, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Golf-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GolfWikipedia:WikiProject GolfTemplate:WikiProject GolfGolf articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's sport: Golf High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's sport (and women in sports), a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of women in sports on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Women's sportWikipedia:WikiProject Women's sportTemplate:WikiProject Women's sportWomen's sport articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Women's golf task force.

Eras

Hi I'd like to propose formatting the major winners table to bring all "eras" within the scope of one table, rather than several separate ones, as is current. The current system looks rather disorganised and for the casual reader could be confusing, particularly to those who are not aware of the history of women's majors, which is very different to that of men's golf, and thus requires a different tabular solution to that used on their page and also that of male and female tennis Grand Slam winners.

The proposal I have in mind brings each major line (5 total) into alignment and includes the descriptions covering years when a major was not being held (eg "not considered a major"), as before. The colours utilised within to highlight the eras, major names and descriptions are open to debate; I propose 3 shades of grey to differentiate between each of these.

Thoughts on these suggestions everyone?

Thanks

Ross-shire (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The four tables delineate four distinct eras and it's easier to read with a little bit of space between the tables instead of running them all together. --Crunch (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the four tables looks better than one large one. Too much "blank space" with one table. Tewapack (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a place we can look at suggestions for improving the table ie to upload a version of the table to see how it looks? Ross-shire (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we try out some new ideas in the sandbox? Ross-shire (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison to Men's Tour and Champion's Tour

I removed the most extreme of the lengthy and detailed comparisons of women's majors to men's majors and Champions Tour majors. This article is not titled, "How women's majors are like or not like men's majors." The article Men's major golf championships contains no comparison to women's majors. If you want an article that compares majors among tours, create that article. --Crunch (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2023 order

In 2023 the Women's PGA Championship is scheduled (according to the dates in the table) for June 22–25 (2nd major of the year) and the U.S. Women's Open is scheduled (according to the dates in the table) for July 6–9 (3rd major of the year). At present it looks like (from left to right) the U.S. Women's Open is the 2nd major of the year and the Women's PGA Championship is the 3rd major of the year. Are the dates in the table accurate? If they are then the heading order should change or a note should be put in saying that the majors were not played in the order shown in the table. (Fran Bosh (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Fixed Tewapack (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]